Stop trying to squeeze more meaning out of the words than are written.
"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823"- DC
So your point is that I shouldn't "squeeze" the supremacy clause to mean that the States gave up their power to, say, infringe on the right to bear arms?
OK. I'll take Mr. Jefferson's advice. I don't think the Founders would have had a problem with making the right to bear arms "the supreme law of the land", esp. considering what they had just been through, and it's not much of a "squeeze" to get that meaning out of the clear text of Article VI. By the way, why DID they single out Congress in the first Amendment, and leave the other amendments so broadly applicable, if they all appled to only Congress? Which one of the Bill of Rights would the ratifying conventions NOT have wished to be the "supreme law of the land", and NOT have wanted their state "judges" to be "bound by"? Ans: None. Reflecting on the "spirit manifested in the debates", I conclude that that nothing in the first 10 Amendments that was left broadly applicable, was not to be "incorporated" at that time some 80 years prior to the "ratification" of the squalid 14th Amendment. The supremacy clause "incorporates" and calls on "the Judges in every State" to pay attention to the US Constitution to see if it supersedes state law. Marshall was wrong in that 5th Amendment case in MD.
I think the "incorporation doctrine" was an unnecessary ruse, sought by slicksters who were trying to prop up the legitimacy of an illegitimate amendment.
I question the entire idea of "incorporation". I think it's a fraud, and another opportunity (created by the squalid 14th Amendment) for judicial activism. If incorporation was not a fraud, then the principle would be applied to all amendments. There would be no "selective" incopropration, which is just subjective judicial micromanagement of state affairs.